An analysis of current practices in undertaking literature reviews in nursing: findings from a focused mapping review and synthesis

Abstract

Background In this paper we discuss the emergence of many different methods for doing a literature review. Referring back to the early days, when there were essentially two types of review; a Cochrane systematic review and a narrative review, we identify how the term systematic review is now widely used to describe a variety of review types and how the number of available methods for doing a literature review has increased dramatically. This led us to undertake a review of current practice of those doing a literature review and the terms used to describe them. Method We undertook a focused mapping review and synthesis. Literature reviews; defined as papers with the terms review or synthesis in the title, published in five nursing journals between January 2017–June 2018 were identified. We recorded the type of review and how these were undertaken. Results We identified more than 35 terms used to describe a literature review. Some terms reflected established methods for doing a review whilst others could not be traced to established methods and/or the description of method in the paper was limited. We also found inconsistency in how the terms were used. Conclusion We have identified a proliferation of terms used to describe doing a literature review; although it is not clear how many distinct methods are being used. Our review indicates a move from an era when the term narrative review was used to describe all ‘non Cochrane’ reviews; to a time of expansion when alternative systematic approaches were developed to enhance rigour of such narrative reviews; to the current situation in which these approaches have proliferated to the extent so that the academic discipline of doing a literature review has become muddled and confusing. We argue that an ‘era of consolidation’ is needed in which those undertaking reviews are explicit about the method used and ensure that their processes can be traced back to a well described, original primary source.

Top ten reasons papers are rejected during initial screening and some tips to avoid early rejection

“…Many authors appear confused over their review type and there is disconnect between the name that they give to the review and description of the approach used. This aligns very much with the findings from Aveyard and Bradbury‐Jones (2019) in their analysis of qualitative literature reviews. They identified more than 35 terms used to describe a literature review which is very confusing.…”

Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements

“…Therefore, where labels related to a product rather than a method, for example rapid response or policy brief, these were excluded. We also acknowledge the publication of new typologies since our initial analysis, the most recent of which was published in May 2019 (Aveyard & Bradbury-Jones, 2019). Labels are only useful when supported by sufficient consensus or authoritative guidance to remove ambiguity on methods and processes.…”

Neonatal weight loss and gain patterns in caesarean section born infants: integrative systematic review

“…Different approaches to review of the literature were considered (Aveyard & Bradbury-Jones, 2019). An integrative approach was deemed the most appropriate for this systematic review due to the variation in study methods and how weight loss information was presented.…”